And, also, the ability to split/join client ports, which actually can allow you to have a layout similar to that QjackCtl offers.

I tend to agree with Thorsten on this matter. The fact is, there's obviously no better software at all, it all depends on your needs and your habits.
For me, QjackCtl's patchbay isn't good enough for my workflow, expecially when working with a lot of clients and with completely different setups per project. And I don't even use the automatic layout, since I really need to put clients where I want.
Also, comparison to physical gear makes sense only in certain situations: even in the real world, I always use completely different setups and patching, I really wouldn't do much with a "standard" patchbay, which is usually intended for pretty standard (and, possibly, always similar) layouts.

I once had an orchestral setup with 10 virtual instrument clients (with 16 audio output ports each), a couple of custom made mididings script (each of them with 8-10 ports), external effects and, finally, ardour. Trust me, in QjackCtl that would have been a mess of intersected bezier-curves. Not that the Patchage visualisation was perfect, but, at least, I was able to organize clients according to their role and connections; it wasn't easy to work with that project, but, at least, everytime I looked at the Patchage window everything was clear at the first glance. That wouldn't have happened with QjackCtl.
I also don't like very much Ardour's patchbay layout: while it makes sense, it takes a lot of space and you have to do a lot of scrolling and eye-searching when you have a lot of clients active.

But, then again, what's important is that you feel right about the tool you use, so, that doesn't matter: they're completely different approaches, they work fine and make sense in their workflow concept.